There are many historical examples of mass migrations of peoples in search of a homeland or "promised land".The challenges involved in such endevour has always required the adaption of hunting and gathering as a means of survival during such journeys.

With a broad enough brush,the Israelites of the Old Testament,the Mormons of 1836-1869,and even the Hobos of the 20's and 30's could be called "nomads".While the decription may not be accurate,it does make a complicated history easier to understand for those seeking simple answers to their questions.

"No people can settle in one place for any length of time, without leaving evidence that they were there."

IMO,the evidence exists,labled Hohokam and possibly by other names from the timeline as well.It's been excavated,collected and studied for years.One major site has been closed to further study.

All true but those with much more knowledge and understanding, than I, of Aztec history have labeled them "nomadic". Personally, I feel the name fits what happened over the 200 or so years while they migrated. As I stated, they all started out as nomads.

It's an interesting topic to discuss, especially with someone as knowledgeable as yourself, and FEMF.

There are many historical examples of mass migrations of peoples in search of a homeland or "promised land".The challenges involved in such endevour has always required the adaption of hunting and gathering as a means of survival during such journeys.

With a broad enough brush,the Israelites of the Old Testament,the Mormons of 1836-1869,and even the Hobos of the 20's and 30's could be called "nomads".While the decription may not be accurate,it does make a complicated history easier to understand for those seeking simple answers to their questions.

"No people can settle in one place for any length of time, without leaving evidence that they were there."

IMO,the evidence exists,labled Hohokam and possibly by other names from the timeline as well.It's been excavated,collected and studied for years.One major site has been closed to further study.

Regards:Wayne

Hello SH
Are you alluring to Snake Town? The picture is a Hohokam arrow head I'm comparing to my second printing of Excavations At Snaketown "Material Culture" If you even stop near by, a Pima from the Tribe will stop to question you about why your in the area, and tell you to get out of that part of the reservation!
FEMF
P.S. Where is my picture?

Last edited by FEMF; May 25, 2012 at 02:46 PM.
Reason: Where is my picture?

Snaketown is the site I was referring to.
Archaeologists and Historians no longer have the rights that they once enjoyed.

Patience my friend.
While in the process of cropping and enlarging the item,I noticed something else which I need to have a closer look at.
I wouldn't want to give anyone else the chance to see it first....

All true but those with much more knowledge and understanding, than I, of Aztec history have labeled them "nomadic". Personally, I feel the name fits what happened over the 200 or so years while they migrated. As I stated, they all started out as nomads.

It's an interesting topic to discuss, especially with someone as knowledgeable as yourself, and FEMF.

Take care,

Joe

Joe:

Rather than adopt your understanding of "nomadic",I prefer to stay with the narrower definition as cited in this article.
This only because I do not believe the mass of people who,around 1015 CE began the journey which ended on the island in Lake Texcoco in 1325 CE,fit the category as I understand it.

Where used properly,the "nomadic" label may very well fit those who became the "proto-Aztecs",according to M.E.Smith's hypothesis.
In his paper,titled "The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History?",Smith categorizes those arriving and taking up residence in the Valley of Mexico circa 500 CE.as "nomads" which become in turn,"proto-aztecs".
These are the Chichimec/Toltec groups of the "Chichimec migration theme",rather than the later group who's own journey began in the place they called "Aztlan",with the "seven caves of Chicmoztoc".

Much of Smith's theory,although now dated,is what I have long held to be probable.

Despite claims by some to the contrary,the "science" is never settled.
And the history of the Americas as we ,amateurs and professionals both know it, is far from being completely written or debated by both Archaeologists and folks like us.While it may be necessary to possess a PHD in order to teach at university,we do not need as much in order to study and learn.

Many of the ideas and observations I have made within this and other related topics of online discussion over the years,are mirrored by the theories presented in these two lectures by Dr. Steven Lekson and DR.Carrol Riley.
Both presentations are well worth watching in their entirety.
Dr. Lekson's observations regarding Quetzalcoatl are of particular interest to me,especially with regard to my photo of the "image" on the canyon wall which we have discussed previously.

That the mobility of people through travel and trade would not have allowed the isolated development of either population group,SouthWestern US or MezoAmerican ,seems clear to me,as does the possibility that at least some of the people of the mass migration of the Mexica from Aztlan in 1015 could have been those who abandoned the Hohokam cities around 1000 CE.

That possibility is why I suggested that the Hohokam may have played a part in the rise of the Aztec Empire.
First,by forming the bulk of the group that joined in the southward exodus,and secondly by becoming one of the major Aztec trade partners while both cultures were in ascendency.

On the movement of the Aztecs, a number of experts have said very clearly that the Aztecs stopped at Tula, N.E. of the Valley of Mexico, for perhaps 20 years before going the final trip to the lake with the eagle and snake. For this reason, they maintained blood ties with the people of Tula. And, those blood ties are mentioned in genealogy.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the discussion on nomads or no nomads. But, to leave out this mixture with Tula and assume they simply wandered until they entered the lake is leaving out a very important item in their history. At least in my opinion.

Let me add for anyone new I live in an un-named place, un-named for very obvious reasons, which is known to have been property of the family of Moctezuma family. There are legends and facts here that are very interesting. Most important local legend is the treasure was buried here. Less than 2 days for slaves to come from Tenochtitlan.

In reference to tribute being paid, part of the local traditions is the Emperor sent people to collect from the local tribes, who were not Aztecs. And, people would watch when the "chiefs" would bring the gold tribute, the doors would shut at night, and when they opened the next morning, the gold would be gone, thus giving rise to legends of buried treasures.

My wife's grandfather, who owned that house from 1939 until his own death in the 70's. told my wife around 1910, they found a body in the floor, of the room now used for granary, and it had a gold neckpiece big enough it was donated to buy a new bell for the local church. The body (i.e. - bones) were moved to the local cemetery, but I do not know where. That might be a question to investigate?

There is a lot of history in this village, and I have written some of it, as well as legends, on other threads here in Aztec Gold. A Ph.D. in another country has an interest in this village, and she is horrified that nothing is being done to preserve the Moctezuma house. She was horrified last summer when I sent her a picture of damage done by a falling tree. I told her there is so much ancient history here, there is too much to be bothered with an ancient house in a village which has a number of antiquities. My wife has one of the original doors, in fact the last one, built into our house, to the delight of our daughter who is also a descendant of the Moctezuma's. The other doors were mostly broken up to burn to heat bath water. (No, I am not joking. Sigh.)

I am waiting for the next Ph.D. book, which allegedly will give the exact connections with the Moctezuma's. We know the first one, a daughter of Moctezuma I who married the local chief. But, further genealogy is pretty much not available to me, until around 1700 - 1780 or so, then again in 1866 I have it all up to date.

Of course, though most don't know it, a big percentage of known descendants of Moctezuma II live in Spain, and are considered Spanish nobility. Book: Moctezuma's Children.

You,ve been kinda quiet lately,but yes,the timeline which I supplied included a period from 1299 CE,where the Aztec migration paused in the region of Tizapan (Tizapan de Alto Jalisco). If they remained in the area for,as is believed 20 years or more,it's likely the group would have spread out to some degree during that time and mixed/intermarried with other groups indigenous to the region.It is well known that they occupied Tula,which they called "Tolan" and believed the Toltec builders to be their "intellectual and cultural predecessors".So yes,it would have been natural for the immigrants who became the Aztec of Tenochtitlan to have maintained close ties with the people of Tula.

[Rather than adopt your understanding of "nomadic",I prefer to stay with the narrower definition as cited in this article.
This only because I do not believe the mass of people who,around 1015 CE began the journey which ended on the island in Lake Texcoco in 1325 CE,fit the category as I understand it.

Where used properly,the "nomadic" label may very well fit those who became the "proto-Aztecs",according to M.E.Smith's hypothesis.
In his paper,titled "The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History?",Smith categorizes those arriving and taking up residence in the Valley of Mexico circa 500 CE.as "nomads" which become in turn,"proto-aztecs".
These are the Chichimec/Toltec groups of the "Chichimec migration theme",rather than the later group who's own journey began in the place they called "Aztlan",with the "seven caves of Chicmoztoc".

Much of Smith's theory,although now dated,is what I have long held to be probable.

Despite claims by some to the contrary,the "science" is never settled.
And the history of the Americas as we ,amateurs and professionals both know it, is far from being completely written or debated by both Archaeologists and folks like us.While it may be necessary to possess a PHD in order to teach at university,we do not need as much in order to study and learn.]

My understanding of "nomadic" and "nomad" is the same as Dr. Smiths, and I have often quoted him. I certainly have no argument with what he wrote.

Here is what happened to the Hohokam:

They fell victim to salt, brought on by their methods of irrigation. At about the same time as they were slowly destroying their crop fields with salt, their were massive floods of the Salt and Gila rivers which destroyed hundreds of miles of Hohokam irrigation canals. This caused a famine that may have lasted for a decade. The Hohokam rebuilt their canals.

A great drought took place in the Southwest from around 1275 to 1350. The once full rivers became dry washes. Many of the civilizations of the area were devastated by drought and famine. The Hohokam were just one of them. They were truly "all used up". Snaketown became a ghost town.

And I believe that Dr. Smith used the terminology properly in reference to those he called the "proto Aztecs" in his paper.

"Here is what happened to the Hohokam:"

Unfortunately,I don't have the time this evening to reply to your assertion to the degree I wish,but I believe it to be an over simplification of cause and effect,especially with regard to the Hohokam decline of about 1100-1150 CE,when the Sacaton Phase ended and the Classic Phase began.While salt contamination of some of the fields which were irrigated by canal has been cited as a possible cause of crop failures late in the classic period,and flooding/drought cycles as well,these occurrences alone are not considered to be the only cause of the Hohokam decline.

And I believe that Dr. Smith used the terminology properly in reference to those he called the "proto Aztecs" in his paper.

"Here is what happened to the Hohokam:"

Unfortunately,I don't have the time this evening to reply to your assertion to the degree I wish,but I believe it to be an over simplification of cause and effect,especially with regard to the Hohokam decline of about 1100-1150 CE,when the Sacaton Phase ended and the Classic Phase began.While salt contamination of some of the fields which were irrigated by canal has been cited as a possible cause of crop failures late in the classic period,and flooding/drought cycles as well,these occurrences alone are not considered to be the only cause of the Hohokam decline.

Here is another pair of excellent lectures on the subject:

Regards:Wayne

___________________________

Wayne,

Well........"over simplification" is what I do best. I notice there was not much mention of Aztec influence on Hohokam decline in Dr. Howard's lecture.

I believe my short synopsis of what happened to the Hohokam is accurate, without going into a detailed lecture of every nuance of their demise. In the final analysis, the Hohokam fell victim to the same fate as Mesopotamia and the Maya Empire.

Too many people, requiring too much agriculture, requiring too much water on the fields, producing too much salt, which created a hard pan surface which was very difficult to break.......using primitive farming implements.

Once again, I realize I am using "over simplification" to put forth an opinion on what happened to the Hohokam society that was capable of building a place like.....Snaketown. I believe this is a more casual discussion than what takes place in a formal educational lecture hall.

I suppose I could do some Internet research to support my opinion, but I prefer the slower method of slogging it out in the books I have at hand.

I don't think Dr. Howard's lecture was intended to address the decline of the Hohokam,and although I expected him to mention salt as one of the reasons for the abandonment of the canal system....he did not.
Nor did Dr.Lekson,who did discuss current findings and theories as to the growth and decline of all of the major groups in the southwest.
Dr's Smith,Riley and Abbott also failed to mention salt contamination,although I'm sure they all have read about the salt hypothesis.
Any or all of them may have conducted research in that area as well,I would suspect.
Both Dr.Lekson and Riley did however,discuss the barriers and pitfalls of "Linear History" and "Up-streaming" as it pertains to archaeological research.
Oversimplification of theory by use of the "Pecos System of study",the "Direct Historic Approach" and "Ethnographic Analogy" is also mentioned by Stephen Lekson as is the "San Juan Hypothesis" by Dr. Riley.

It may be that my thought process has just not advanced even to the level of linear thinking. I have often been accused of being a mental dinosaur.....in so many words. I have noticed that the simple answers are seldom accepted as being correct, by those with advanced education and post-linear.......hardware.

Being a bit of a simpleton, I can see the connection of the Hohokam civilizations slide into obscurity could be a direct consequence of the too much, too many theory of the flood/salt/drought crowd. I understand that's not as attractive as the more sexy and complicated theory of Aztec warriors crushing the peaceful Hohokam farmers.

On the other hand, I can see the possibility of Aztec intervention, but the evidence for that seems slim....at best. I expect you will correct that misconception when you return. Right now, the Hohokam just wandering away from their former bread basket and melding with other tribes seems like the most direct historical path.

All of the above is just my uninformed opinion, so I could, of course, be wrong.

"the more sexy and complicated theory of Aztec warriors crushing the peaceful Hohokam farmers."

I'm not sure where you came up with that one,but it does sound more exciting than what I had in mind....despite being an excellent example of misconception via non-linear thinking on your part.

This is what I said in my original post:

"While I do suspect that the Aztec may have roots in the Hohokam/Salado etc.,and that the growth of the Aztec empire may have facilitated and finalized the demise of the northern groups,that might be a subject for a more dedicated discussion thread."

I was thinking more along the lines of the possibility of a collapse of trade with neighbouring cultures,triggered by the rapid growth of the Aztec Empire and it's growing demand,not only for the resources of it's own territory,but also through the demands for tribute placed on those they conquered.
My thought is that this may have resulted in a "domino effect" causing a collapse of the entire regional trade network (Casas Grandes to Chaco),which likely (at least for the Hohokam of the Phoenix Basin at the end of the Classic Phase) was already under stress from drought,etc.